Yeah considering it now just the idea of having Wonder Woman and Superman (Henry Cavill) in the same film would be VERY problematic. Cause then we'd have to buy that in this raw heavy realistic world that Snyder's creating (based on the teaser) that there would also be mythological creatures and an island of warrior princesses.

Off-topic: Why can't Snyder throw us a bone during this lean period with at least another official pic or something! I've never been more looking forward to a movie but the wait for December is rough!

2. What is so much more misplaced about WW's origin in a JL movie than GL or MM? Seriously can somebody explain that to me?

I can only speak for myself.

I'm not gonna say that Superman has more reality to him than WW. But by making him into science fiction and playing up his alien heritage just creates a whole different plausibility than with WW. We dont know for certain what really goes on on the other side of the Solar-system, so that makes anything possible more or less. He's not of this earth and neither is GL(the alien side) and MM.

I see WW as more of a myth (greek mythology actually), something close to a god or demi-god and she's very much from earth whatever dimension/time she then originates from.
Like THOR there's just too much of a flimsy fairytale/fantasy-vibe going on. Also WW ideals sound a little "off" in the universe they're trying to create IF it's connected to MOS. Amazon-women striding around in golden swimsuits doesnt really belong in that universe.
But it all comes down to MOS and where they wanna take the whole thing.

And regarding the name-thing, most CB-characters DO have retarded names. Superman, Batman, Brainiac... Just plain retarded, but I guess that's mostly from a contemporary POV. Today people just take some of the names for granted, so it's not a big issue. That does suck for the lesser known characters, but there it is.
I will add though that putting "wonder" in front of something just makes it even sillier. Like Captain Amazing or something.
At least Superman comes from super-man, a superior man.

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

Im pasting this from the JL movie thread as it mostly pertains to MoS:

If MoS is as good as TDK or IM or TA or even SM2, it will be an ENORMOUS success. Box office success doesnt always mean the movie was great, but in this case thats exactly what it will mean. There is no reason why this movie shouldnt blow minds slash kick ass slash wow audiences, and if it does it will pass the "chicken feed" number of 400 million by the 2nd week (ww). If it doesnt, if Cavill is merely ok, if the set pieces arent unique and spectacular, if the pacing isnt quite right, if certain characters are miscast, if the film is humorless and takes itself TOO seriously, the movie will probably underperform.

If "everyone" likes it, the movie will make a ton of money. Thats how you will know that "everyone likes it". See? Same with word of mouth.

And I think its very strange that so many here are satisfied with a good (but not great) movie that almost breaks even, as long as its enough to make JL happen. I assure you that WB has a very different attitude, but to read from fans that they're okay with MoS being a mere catalyst for future projects is sad. If you are any kind of Superman fan, then this movie needs to be great. And if its great, the box office will be phenomenal.

Oh, and the whole "superheroes underperform in June" thing is utter ********. There is no logical reason why this would always be the case, and the sample size is way to small to draw any conclusions from past films. Again, if MoS disappoints, it wont be because it was released in June and not July or May (i think i remember a certain SH movie coming out in May that did pretty well). Also, the competition argument is even weaker. More pre-emptive rationalizations for failure. I don't get it.

Now, if MoS comes out, and the buzz is great, and the critics all love it, and the Superhero Hype consensus is that its a kickass movie, AND it still underperforms (under 500 ww) at the bo, then I will have to eat some serious crow. like a whole murder of crows. More likely I think is the opposite: the movie isnt that great, but it still does great business because of its groundbreaking effects or whatever. I don't think it HAS to be great to make a lot of money. But if it barely breaks even, or worse, this will be a direct reflection on the product itself. Theres no way in hell that a GREAT Superman movie doesnt make a ton of cash. Period.

I know this isnt the MoS thread, but all I care about is a great Superman movie. If we get a great film, this will bode well for a JL movie. One with an unprecedented budget and A-list talent across the board.

edit: my main point was that theres no reason to lower expectations for this movie artistically or financially. Some folks seem satisfied with a decent movie that barely makes its money back, which shocks me a bit.

Yeah considering it now just the idea of having Wonder Woman and Superman (Henry Cavill) in the same film would be VERY problematic. Cause then we'd have to buy that in this raw heavy realistic world that Snyder's creating (based on the teaser) that there would also be mythological creatures and an island of warrior princesses.

Why can't they take a realistic tone with WW as well. If they can adapt all of this Kryptonian stuff into MOS and still have it be grounded and realistic, why can't Wonder Woman do the same?

Why can't they take the approach of 'What if this demi-god from a mythological land was actually here today?' if they can take that approach with an alien being with superhuman powers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallville13

Off-topic: Why can't Snyder throw us a bone during this lean period with at least another official pic or something! I've never been more looking forward to a movie but the wait for December is rough!

Yeah I was really hoping we'd have a few more official pics by now. I mean, it's only 7 months and 25 days to go!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rust

I can only speak for myself.

I'm not gonna say that Superman has more reality to him than WW. But by making him into science fiction and playing up his alien heritage just creates a whole different plausibility than with WW. We dont know for certain what really goes on on the other side of the Solar-system, so that makes anything possible more or less. He's not of this earth and neither is GL(the alien side) and MM.

I see WW as more of a myth (greek mythology actually), something close to a god or demi-god and she's very much from earth whatever dimension/time she then originates from.
Like THOR there's just too much of a flimsy fairytale/fantasy-vibe going on. And WW ideals just sound a little "off" in the universe they're trying to create IF it's connected to MOS. Amazon-women striding around in golden swimsuits doesnt really belong in that universe.
But it all comes down to MOS and where they wanna take the whole thing.

But that is simply what the DC universe is. In the DC universe, mythological lands exist AND alien world's exist. You have the same problem with Aquaman and Atlantis. But the DC universe brings mythology and science fiction together.

Trying to run away from that is just a little silly to me.

And I don't know why you say like Thor there is too much... Thor was great. It wasn't too much. It was just right. They handled it perfectly IMO, and if Wonder Woman did the same, it would be absolutely plausible for her and Superman to exist within the same world.

But no, you don't have to have her standing around in a gold bikini. Just like they've modernised the Superman costume for MOS, just like they've adapted the entire look of Kryptonian wear for this film, they can do the same thing in WW.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

But that is simply what the DC universe is. In the DC universe, mythological lands exist AND alien world's exist. You have the same problem with Aquaman and Atlantis. But the DC universe brings mythology and science fiction together.

Trying to run away from that is just a little silly to me.

And I don't know why you say like Thor there is too much... Thor was great. It wasn't too much. It was just right. They handled it perfectly IMO, and if Wonder Woman did the same, it would be absolutely plausible for her and Superman to exist within the same world.

But no, you don't have to have her standing around in a gold bikini. Just like they've modernised the Superman costume for MOS, just like they've adapted the entire look of Kryptonian wear for this film, they can do the same thing in WW.

I'm speaking from a MOS-POV. I'm starting to repeat myself.

Let's see where MOS goes, shall we...

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

Yeah, I understand the perspective your speaking from. I just don't agree with it. I don't see why WW or any DC character couldn't fit in the world of MOS.

The reason I would prefer MOS to be a seperate franchise isn't because I think the tone they've set for the film doesn't suit a JL spin off. It's just because I love Superman so much, I almost selfishly want him to have is moment in the spotlight alone.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

An honest question, am I really the only person out there that DOES NOT want or care to see a JL film made?

I like superhero's within there individual universes. I think storytelling wise it just makes sense. Once you blow it up to a universe each hero becomes less unique.

I also think the route they will take batman in is weird. Nolan created this billion dollar franchise. Arguably WB's only popular character at the moment in terms of film, yet you are going to use a completely different version. It would be like using a different Iron Man.

I think superman has enough material to make a great trilogy, same goes for the other heroes. I don't see a JL movie having much of an impact on terms of character growth. Avengers was a fun movie, I just don't find myself going back to it like I do with the individual characters.

Why can't they take a realistic tone with WW as well. If they can adapt all of this Kryptonian stuff into MOS and still have it be grounded and realistic, why can't Wonder Woman do the same?

Why can't they take the approach of 'What if this demi-god from a mythological land was actually here today?' if they can take that approach with an alien being with superhuman powers?

No you're absolutely right. Like I said I would absolutely love for them to take a Nolanesque approach to WW. The problem would be having WW and Henry Cavill's Supes together would I feel take away from MOS. Cause Snyder is essentially establishing the world as 'our world'. And having more than just 1 superpowered being, not to mention suddenly having to buy greek mythology as real, would just lessen Supermans impact.

I guess I really just want Man of Steel to have a self-contained trilogy like The Dark Knight trilogy. Where Superman is the only superhero and exploring what that means. And not be lessened by being filled with all of the other DC properties.

From what we've been reading about their approach and from the tone in the teaser, it just doesnt fit IMO that is. I may have put too much into the whole reality-thing or I'm just misreading it.

I guess it wouldnt be very smart of them to exclude the possibility of Cavill being Superman in JL, so yeah, it'll probably make sense somewhere.

Like you I just want a great MOS-movie first and foremost, only I'd really dig an ultrarealistic spin on it for a change.

I'm tired...

I think a year ago when we didn't know much about MOS, i'd probably have agreed with you. But with all the talk of the Fortress ship, Black Zone prison ship, Zod fighting in some kind of mo-cap outfit, a possible army of kryptonian robots... I guess I just think that this whole 'realistic' thing has been misconstrued.

It'll be realistic in terms of the way people react, the emotion and personality of the characters etc... but the actual content of the storyline and background in the film seems to be very fantasy based.

But yeah, talking about it makes me tired too That's why I don't tend to go into the JL discussion threads.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

I think a year ago when we didn't know much about MOS, i'd probably have agreed with you. But with all the talk of the Fortress ship, Black Zone prison ship, Zod fighting in some kind of mo-cap outfit, a possible army of kryptonian robots... I guess I just think that this whole 'realistic' thing has been misconstrued.

It'll be realistic in terms of the way people react, the emotion and personality of the characters etc... but the actual content of the storyline and background in the film seems to be very fantasy based.

Sci-fi based IMO. Two different things. We obviously disagree on the matter. Or maybe we just misunderstand eachother, maybe due to tiredness. My hair is not a bird. Anymore...

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

Another way to frame it too. If you think of our world today on a scale as point zero. It is easier to imagine making contact with aliens, other worlds as point one. Yes it would change things making it seem all more unrealistic with black zero ship and robot armies and what have you but it still can all take place after today. But to take into account WW you would have to essentially change point zero and therefore it would not be the world we live in today as greek mythology and what have you is all real.

I thought the whole parts in Thor where the old astrologist guy said something like (not exact quote): "The nonsense he's speaking, Thor, Asguardians, it's the stories we read as kids" and I was like ehh. Didn't really work I thought. But that's the lighter more free and fun tone Disney/Marvel is going for which is great. I just like having the DC/Nolan movies more denser high drama.

That's what I want in MOS. The "adult" approach and with that you need as much "realism" as you can throw into this sort of material.

Just look at the raw grainy authentic footage in the teaser of the water hitting the rocks and the seagull to know what tone Snyder is going for. Even the final shot of him breaking the sound barrier on the way up. It's only cause we know it's not real that we don't consider how easily it could be passed off as. I mean we just saw Felix Baumgartner do the same thing (going the opposite way ha).

Slight tangent: Working at a mine I remember having lunch with the stereotypical 'tough' tradesmen back at the start of the year and we started talking about comicbook movies and they were reminiscing about running around as a kid with a cape on. (which I did as well, didn't we all?) That's why when I saw the teaser I thought that is such a smart way to pitch it to the audience. Cause that's what most people would associate with Superman I think.

You right. Without the solo-features there's not much meat on it. Not that there were much on the solo-features either.

There wasn't much meat on them because it became about building up to the avengers.

Think of how awesome IM 2 could have been if they actually developed whiplash and hinted to the 10 rings as this larger organization. The shield stuff just didn't need the screen time that it did.

Watching the avengers, I didn't feel like I really needed to watch the solo films in order to understand what was going on. In fact the solo films, IMO, didn't really add much to the viewing experience. Judging by the box office of the avengers most people obviously felt the same way.

All that said, the great thing about the way avengers was done is that all the actors, minus hulk, were the same.

Justice League will basically have one common actor, Cavill, should MOS do well.

If its money WB want, and lets be honest it is, they should throw a bunch of money at Bale to get him to do it. I just don't think a reboot will do all that well because batman has had 7 movies out and quality is a very difficult thing to keep up.

I understand and appreciate your sentiments. But “silly” in this case isn’t necessarily anchored to misogyny. Given Wonder Woman’s specific iconography (her physical “endowments,” skimpy costume), more than a few staunch feminists would probably call her “silly” too.

Im pasting this from the JL movie thread as it mostly pertains to MoS:

If MoS is as good as TDK or IM or TA or even SM2, it will be an ENORMOUS success. Box office success doesnt always mean the movie was great, but in this case thats exactly what it will mean. There is no reason why this movie shouldnt blow minds slash kick ass slash wow audiences, and if it does it will pass the "chicken feed" number of 400 million by the 2nd week (ww). If it doesnt, if Cavill is merely ok, if the set pieces arent unique and spectacular, if the pacing isnt quite right, if certain characters are miscast, if the film is humorless and takes itself TOO seriously, the movie will probably underperform.

If "everyone" likes it, the movie will make a ton of money. Thats how you will know that "everyone likes it". See? Same with word of mouth.

And I think its very strange that so many here are satisfied with a good (but not great) movie that almost breaks even, as long as its enough to make JL happen. I assure you that WB has a very different attitude, but to read from fans that they're okay with MoS being a mere catalyst for future projects is sad. If you are any kind of Superman fan, then this movie needs to be great. And if its great, the box office will be phenomenal.

Oh, and the whole "superheroes underperform in June" thing is utter ********. There is no logical reason why this would always be the case, and the sample size is way to small to draw any conclusions from past films. Again, if MoS disappoints, it wont be because it was released in June and not July or May (i think i remember a certain SH movie coming out in May that did pretty well). Also, the competition argument is even weaker. More pre-emptive rationalizations for failure. I don't get it.

Now, if MoS comes out, and the buzz is great, and the critics all love it, and the Superhero Hype consensus is that its a kickass movie, AND it still underperforms (under 500 ww) at the bo, then I will have to eat some serious crow. like a whole murder of crows. More likely I think is the opposite: the movie isnt that great, but it still does great business because of its groundbreaking effects or whatever. I don't think it HAS to be great to make a lot of money. But if it barely breaks even, or worse, this will be a direct reflection on the product itself. Theres no way in hell that a GREAT Superman movie doesnt make a ton of cash. Period.

I know this isnt the MoS thread, but all I care about is a great Superman movie. If we get a great film, this will bode well for a JL movie. One with an unprecedented budget and A-list talent across the board.

edit: my main point was that theres no reason to lower expectations for this movie artistically or financially. Some folks seem satisfied with a decent movie that barely makes its money back, which shocks me a bit.

This board has long been satisfied with just having a "decent" movie. As long as this Superman punches people in the face, people don't seem to care about having a truly great film.

Like you, I want something great that gets people talking like TDK, TA, etc.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

No you're absolutely right. Like I said I would absolutely love for them to take a Nolanesque approach to WW. The problem would be having WW and Henry Cavill's Supes together would I feel take away from MOS. Cause Snyder is essentially establishing the world as 'our world'. And having more than just 1 superpowered being, not to mention suddenly having to buy greek mythology as real, would just lessen Supermans impact.

I guess I really just want Man of Steel to have a self-contained trilogy like The Dark Knight trilogy. Where Superman is the only superhero and exploring what that means. And not be lessened by being filled with all of the other DC properties.

They can still do that.Simply say that Superheroes only show up in the Timeline after the events of the MOS Trilogy.That means the MOS Trilogy can be free to be done without any hinderances

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

Hmmm....let's see.....superMAN, batMAN, aquaMAN, hawkMAN........and then wonderWOMAN.....yeah, I think I see the problem you are having.

Yep....they don't obey and actually try to leave the kitchen.....how rude of them.

Because no male superheroes wear garrish colors that are considered underwear.

Yeah.....instead of fighting criminals, beating up men and monsters, or saving the world from alien invasion, she should be saving puppies and kittens from a flood, making a snack for Superman while he saves the world, or maybe heroicly comforting a child who scraped their knee.